BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Friday the 29th day of September, 2006
CC No. 111/2006
Smt. P. Bala Tresa, W/o. Late M. Beesanna, Aged about 60 years,
H.No. 77/33, Chintalamuni Nagar, Industrial Estate, Kallur, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager, A. Sai Shankar, Indusind Bank,
Shop No. 62-65, 1st floor, S.V. Complex, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and opposite party called absent set exparte, and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Sri K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This complaint is filed U/s 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction on the opposite party to return all the documents collected at the time of entering contract including title deeds deposited with opposite party, declare illegal the seizure of vehicle made on 28.7.2006, grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and damage to the vehicle including loss of hire charges during seizure and Rs.5,000/- as costs, alleging the purchase of Tempo Trax Jude Belux A.C from MG brothers Automotive enterprises on finance from said MG Brothers paying Rs.2,20,000/- in cash and agreeing for paying the residuary amount of Rs.2,51,000/- in installments fixed by the financier and obtained delivery of the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 V 7548 and was paying the installments regularly and on her request the opposite party sent a settlement letter requesting payment of Rs.94,000/- towards full and final settlement of the loan on said vehicle for discharging the same and the complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 712945 dt 26.7.2006 for Rs.94,000/- accordingly infavour of the opposite party and obtained a receipt for the same and inspite of said receipt the opposite party is not inclined to return the title deeds of the complainant along with other documents executed at the time of taking said finance and on the other hand the agents of the opposite party with a malafide intention even after receipt of full settlement, on 26.7.2006 seized the said vehicle illegally and exposing the same to the threats of nature to the mental agony and harassment of the complainant and the acts of opposite party are amounting to deficiency of service.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of the Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party not appeared for contesting the case and remained exparte absenting through out.
3. In substantiation of the contentions the complainant has relied upon the documentary record in Ex A.1 to A.4 and her sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments.
4. On the basis of Ex A.1 to A.4 the complainant has obtained an interim orders in IA No. 260/2006 on 3.8.2006 for the interim release of the said vehicle by the respondent in her favour.
5. The Ex A.1 is xerox copy of letter dated 10.7.2006 addressed to the complainant requiring of the payment of Rs.94,000/- by 20.7.2006 towards the settlement figure of the vehicle No. AP 21 V 7548 concerned in contract No. ARAAO 1378. The ExA.3 envisages the receipt of cheque bearing No. 712945 dated 26.7.2006 for Rs.94,000/- and it was issued subject to realization. The Ex A.4 is repossessory inventory list dated 28.7.2006 as to the seizure of the complainant’s vehicle by the opposite party. In the circumstances stated above the seizure of the vehicle inspite of receipt by opposite party of the final settlement of amount of Rs.94,000/- towards said vehicle, remains not justifiable especially when the opposite party is silent as to any cogent objections as to the said final settlement payment and of any circumstances justifying the said seizure.
6. There being any complaint from the complainant as to non compliance of the orders passed in Ia No.260/2006 dated 3.8.2006 by the opposite party, the release of the seized of the vehicle in favour of the complainant remains complied and there by nothing is remaining for being ordered in the case.
7. The complainant except alleging the deposit of title deeds and several other documents at the time of entering said hire purchase transaction with the opposite party did not place any cogent material evidencing their deposit with the opposite party and of any detail particulars of those documents to consider the request of the complainant for a direction to that defect on the opposite party.
8. Further after obtaining the said interim orders for the release of the seized vehicle, the complainant neither made any appearance nor took up any deligent prosecution of the case seeking for any reliefs. It goes without any further say that the complainant remained silent to the subsequent proceedings as its purpose of release of the seized vehicle in her favour has been achieved by the interim order and hence there remains anything for being sought in the case.
9. Therefore, the case of the complainant is closed for want of deligent prosecution.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench this the 29th day of September, 2006.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Xerox copy of letter, dt 10.7.2006 addressed y Indusind Bank to the
complainant (final settlement of Rs.94,000/-.
Ex A.2 Xerox copy of letter, dt 26.7.2006 isued by Shriram Transport Finance Co.
Ltd., to Branch Manager, Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd, Kurnool.
Ex A.3 Xerox copy of receipt No. RASA R 0100 (42851) dt 26.7.2006 as to the
payment of Rs.94,000/- issued to complainant.
Ex A.4 Repossession Inventory List dt 28.7.2006.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1.Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool.
2.The Branch Manager,A. Sai Shankar, Indusind Bank, Shop No. 62-65, 1st floor,
S.V. Complex, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
